w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



State of Andhra Pradesh v/s Coromandel Agro Products And Oils Limited

    Tax Revision Case Appeal No. 292 of 1985

    Decided On, 15 April 1987

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UPENDRALAL WAGHRAY

    For the Appearing Parties: C.T. Roy, G. Srirama Rao, Advocates.



Judgment Text

UPENDRALAL WAGHRAY, J.


(1) THIS revision under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, is filed by the State, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in so far as it has decided one of the question against it. The said question was framed as question No. 1 by the Tribunal, and it reads as follows :"where or not the sludge oil and cotton seed acid oil are vegetable oils coming under entry 128 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to attract lower rate of taxation under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 8 of the said Act ?"


(2) THE relevant entry which falls for consideration is entry 128 in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which reads as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------------- (1) (2) (3) (4) -----------------------------------------------------------------"128. Vegetable oils (other than At the point 4 paise in those specifically mentioned of first sale the rupee. "else where), including in the state. gingelly oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, soyabean oil, mustard oil, kusuma oil, tobacco seed oil, castor oil, washed cotton seed oil, coconut oil; (1128).-----------------------------------------------------------------


(3) THE Tribunal, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1960] 11 STC 827 and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prag Ice and Oil Mills [1975] 35 STC 520, has held that cotton seed sludge oil and cotton seed acid oil are "vegetable oils" and, accordingly, liable to be taxed under entry 128. The contention of the department throughout has been that it does not fall within the said entry, but must be assessed as "generally goods", i. e. , at 4 per cent.


(4) IT is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes that reliance by the Tribunal on the aforesaid two decisions is not correct. He submitted that entry 128 contemplates a vegetable oil which is edible. This, according to him has to be inferred from the circumstance that it mentions various oils which are edible.


(5) WE need not go into the question of applicability of the Supreme court decision or the Allahabad High Court decision for resolving the controversy in this case, because it can be decided on the language of the entry itself. The entry relates to "vegetable oils" and the various oils mentioned therein are only illustrative. The entry specifically says "vegetable oils" including those mentioned therein. In the circumstances, there is no warrant for placing the construction that the said entry relates only to those vegetable oils which are edible. It appears from the facts of the case that cotton seed sludge oil and cotten seed acid oil is the residue after the cotten seed oil is refind i. e. , what is known as "washed cotton seed oil" is taken away. This residue is usually sold and is used in the manufacture of soap as oil. The mere fact that it is a residue left after the refined cotton seed oil is taken away, or that it contains some residuary additives it does not cease to be "vegetable oil". Having regard to the wide language used it is not possible to restrict it only a edible vegetable oils. Apart from this, groundnut oil which is also an edible oil is shown as a separate entry 24. This also negatives the contention that entry 128 relates to edible oils.


(6) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we hold that cotton

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

seed sludge oil and cotton seed acid oil fall under entry 128 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and are liable to be taxes accordingly in the relevant assessment year. We confirm the conclusion of the Tribunal though we have adopted a slightly different reasoning. Tax revision case is dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250. (7) PETITION dismissed.
O R